Coveverag in 95008

How is the Cingualr coverage in Campbell, CA 95008. I thinking about
switching from Verizon.

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:57:24 GMT, "Dave" <rjtechnology@gmail.com> wrote
in <ne36h.5544$Sw1.4282@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> :

>How is the Cingualr coverage in Campbell, CA 95008. I thinking about
>switching from Verizon.

<http://onlinecare.cingular.com/coverageviewer/>

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Dave wrote:
> How is the Cingualr coverage in Campbell, CA 95008. I thinking about
> switching from Verizon.

All of Campbell is 95008, so going by zip code is not sufficient. It's
like many Bay Area suburbs where one zip code covers a relatively large
area. Along Bascom, Winchester, Hamilton, and Campbell Avenue the
coverage is probably just fine, it's when you get into the
non-commercial areas that you have to worry.

That said, Campbell doesn't have the issues that some other Bay Area
cities have with new suburbs in the nether regions having poor coverage
from one carrier or another. Cupertino has large swaths where T-Mobile
and Sprint suck, because these are off in the hills where no one wants
a tower. Campbell is pretty flat and compact, and other than maybe over
along parts of Dry Creek Road between Bascom and Leigh, you should have
no problem with any carrier.

When I lived in Campbell, about 15 years ago, I had AT&T/Cellular One
TDMA and it was fine, so Cingular GSM should also be fine, since it's
the same network.

I still notice that the Santa Cruz mountains have much better coverage
with Verizon than with Cingular, but if you don't care about non-urban
areas, then Cingular should be fine.

On 13 Nov 2006 16:27:34 -0800, scharf.steven@gmail.com wrote in
<1163464054.666322.37500@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>:

>I still notice that the Santa Cruz mountains have much better coverage
>with Verizon than with Cingular, ...

Not true.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Thanks to all.

Tmobile never worked reliably for me from home. Verizon is very good.

The cingualr coverage map says I am in a good area.

I may give it a try. I mainly need downtown Los Gatos, Campbell (near
Winchester and San Tomas) and downtown Campbell.



Thanks for the inputs..


<scharf.steven@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163464054.666322.37500@b28g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> Dave wrote:
>> How is the Cingualr coverage in Campbell, CA 95008. I thinking about
>> switching from Verizon.
>
> All of Campbell is 95008, so going by zip code is not sufficient. It's
> like many Bay Area suburbs where one zip code covers a relatively large
> area. Along Bascom, Winchester, Hamilton, and Campbell Avenue the
> coverage is probably just fine, it's when you get into the
> non-commercial areas that you have to worry.
>
> That said, Campbell doesn't have the issues that some other Bay Area
> cities have with new suburbs in the nether regions having poor coverage
> from one carrier or another. Cupertino has large swaths where T-Mobile
> and Sprint suck, because these are off in the hills where no one wants
> a tower. Campbell is pretty flat and compact, and other than maybe over
> along parts of Dry Creek Road between Bascom and Leigh, you should have
> no problem with any carrier.
>
> When I lived in Campbell, about 15 years ago, I had AT&T/Cellular One
> TDMA and it was fine, so Cingular GSM should also be fine, since it's
> the same network.
>
> I still notice that the Santa Cruz mountains have much better coverage
> with Verizon than with Cingular, but if you don't care about non-urban
> areas, then Cingular should be fine.
>

Dave wrote:
> Thanks to all.
>
> Tmobile never worked reliably for me from home. Verizon is very good.

So why are you switching? I go to Campbell a lot, as I rent out the
property that I used to live in, as well as going there to ride the bike
path to LG and beyond. You're correct, Verizon is very good there.

> The cingualr coverage map says I am in a good area.
>
> I may give it a try. I mainly need downtown Los Gatos, Campbell (near
> Winchester and San Tomas) and downtown Campbell.

As long as you don't need good Santa Cruz mountains coverage, Cingular
should be fine. I go up to the Saratoga Gap/Highway 9 area a lot, and
points east, south, and west from there, and Verizon is excellent, while
Cingular is poor. Remember, when you move to Cingular, you lose all the
AMPS coverage which is still very useful in many parts of the Bay Area.

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 01:37:19 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45598e4d$0$88700$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Dave wrote:

>> I may give it a try. I mainly need downtown Los Gatos, Campbell (near
>> Winchester and San Tomas) and downtown Campbell.
>
>As long as you don't need good Santa Cruz mountains coverage, Cingular
>should be fine. I go up to the Saratoga Gap/Highway 9 area a lot, and
>points east, south, and west from there, and Verizon is excellent, while
>Cingular is poor.

Dave, be warned that Steven has a hard-on for GSM in general and
Cingular in particular, and rarely misses an opportunity to troll in the
Cingular newsgroup and claim Verizon is better.

I've compared Cingular to Verizon in the areas he mentions, and there
really isn't that much difference in general. There are lots of
coverage gaps with both carriers up in the hills. Cingular has actually
been a bit better than Verizon in areas I care about (e.g., Los Trancos
Open Space), but it might be the other way around in areas you care
about -- there is valid generalization, so be sure to check for
yourself.

>Remember, when you move to Cingular, you lose all the
>AMPS coverage which is still very useful in many parts of the Bay Area.

You don't get AMPS with Cingular, but you probably wouldn't get it for
long with Verizon either, as the FCC mandate will soon expire. In other
words, it's not a good longer-term criteria.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

At 14 Nov 2006 15:26:46 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> You don't get AMPS with Cingular, but you probably wouldn't get it for
> long with Verizon either, as the FCC mandate will soon expire. In other
> words, it's not a good longer-term criteria.
>
In a world where people change handsets on a annual basis, and wireless
contracts are one or two years, I'm not sure one NEEDS "long term
criteria" to select a carrier.

And, franlky, I'm not sure your implied "Verizon's coverage is better
now, but might be downgraded to Cingular's level in a few years when AMPS
is phased out" is exactly the cloth that sales brochures are cut from!
;-)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 14 Nov 2006 15:26:46 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> You don't get AMPS with Cingular, but you probably wouldn't get it for
>> long with Verizon either, as the FCC mandate will soon expire. In other
>> words, it's not a good longer-term criteria.
>>
> In a world where people change handsets on a annual basis, and wireless
> contracts are one or two years, I'm not sure one NEEDS "long term
> criteria" to select a carrier.
>
> And, franlky, I'm not sure your implied "Verizon's coverage is better
> now, but might be downgraded to Cingular's level in a few years when AMPS
> is phased out" is exactly the cloth that sales brochures are cut from!
> ;-)

What John doesn't understand is that the FCC is not mandating that AMPS
be shut down, it's merely _permitting_ it to be shut down.

One indicator of AMPS coverage in the Santa Cruz mountains are the
roadside call boxes. While there is a program in place to convert the
AMPS call boxes to CDMA, this would require a lot more towers, so it may
be more economical, in the rural areas, to keep them as AMPS for now.
It's in the urban areas where the carriers are chomping at the bit to
turn off AMPS, because it's so inefficient in terms of spectral efficiency.

In other areas, including parts of the Sierra Nevada, AMPS is the only
coverage provided by the smaller carriers along long stretches of state
highways. These carriers have little incentive, and no money, to convert
these portions of their network to digital.

John has been claiming that AMPS will degrade Verizon's coverage to the
same level of Cingular's coverage for a couple of years now. In the long
term he may be right, but it's more likely that a lot of AMPS will
remain on, by choice, until there is something available to replace it.

Personally I think that the government should fund construction of
towers for rural coverage, and offer carriers the option to lease space
on the towers. No carrier is willing, on its own, to make the tremendous
investment to get ubiquitous digital coverage in rural areas.

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 10:04:01 -0700, Todd Allcock
<ElecConnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
<4559ea42$0$21093$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:

>At 14 Nov 2006 15:26:46 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> You don't get AMPS with Cingular, but you probably wouldn't get it for
>> long with Verizon either, as the FCC mandate will soon expire. In other
>> words, it's not a good longer-term criteria.
>>
>In a world where people change handsets on a annual basis, and wireless
>contracts are one or two years, I'm not sure one NEEDS "long term
>criteria" to select a carrier.

The FCC mandate will "sunset" in Feb 2008, well within the standard
2-year contract term.

>And, franlky, I'm not sure your implied "Verizon's coverage is better
>now, but might be downgraded to Cingular's level in a few years when AMPS
>is phased out" is exactly the cloth that sales brochures are cut from!

I said nothing of the kind. Cingular actually has better overall
coverage than Verizon here in the San Francisco Bay Area.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 09:15:23 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4559f9a9$0$88704$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>What John doesn't understand is that the FCC is not mandating that AMPS
>be shut down, it's merely _permitting_ it to be shut down.

I actually understand the matter quite well, thank you. I also
understand that carriers are eager to shut down AMPS service (due to
reasons of high cost, low demand/revenue, inefficiency, redeployment of
infrastructure and spectrum, etc.), and are expected to do so rapidly
following "sunset" of the AMPS mandate.

>One indicator of AMPS coverage in the Santa Cruz mountains are the
>roadside call boxes. While there is a program in place to convert the
>AMPS call boxes to CDMA, this would require a lot more towers, so it may
>be more economical, in the rural areas, to keep them as AMPS for now.

Simply untrue.

>In other areas, including parts of the Sierra Nevada, AMPS is the only
>coverage provided by the smaller carriers along long stretches of state
>highways. These carriers have little incentive, and no money, to convert
>these portions of their network to digital.

On the contrary -- these smaller carriers get most of their profits from
roaming, and thus are likewise eager to redeploy from AMPS to digital.

>John has been claiming that AMPS will degrade Verizon's coverage to the
>same level of Cingular's coverage for a couple of years now.

I said nothing of the kind. Cingular actually has better overall
coverage than Verizon here in the San Francisco Bay Area.

>In the long
>term he may be right, but it's more likely that a lot of AMPS will
>remain on, by choice, until there is something available to replace it.

I'll take that bet -- I don't think this forecast is going to be any
better than your prior forecasts.

>Personally I think that the government should fund construction of
>towers for rural coverage, and offer carriers the option to lease space
>on the towers.

Terrible idea -- that kind of government interference in the market only
serves to create *dis*incentives.

>No carrier is willing, on its own, to make the tremendous
>investment to get ubiquitous digital coverage in rural areas.

Patently untrue.

AMPS "sunset" will stimulate improved digital coverage in rural areas,
part of why it's long overdue.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

At 14 Nov 2006 09:15:23 -0800 SMS wrote:

> What John doesn't understand is that the FCC is not mandating that AMPS
be shut down, it's merely _permitting_ it to be shut down.

John understands it just fine. Cingular will shut off analog the morning
the FCC allows it, because they get to kill two legacy technologies with
one stone. Verizon has far less of an incentive to squash analog because
any of their current customer base (with a dual-mode phone) can use it.
Only a _very_ small pc of Cingular customers (that haven't been bullied
into switching to GSM or leaving Cingular altogether!) can utilize
Cingular's legacy analog service.

> One indicator of AMPS coverage in the Santa Cruz mountains are the
roadside call boxes. While there is a program in place to convert the
AMPS call boxes to CDMA, this would require a lot more towers, so it may
be more economical, in the rural areas, to keep them as AMPS for now.
It's in the urban areas where the carriers are chomping at the bit to
turn off AMPS, because it's so inefficient in terms of spectral efficiency.


Agreed- if a rural tower is not utilizing anything close to it's
capacity, there's no incentive to shut of the "bandwith wasting" analog
channels
> In other areas, including parts of the Sierra Nevada, AMPS is the only
coverage provided by the smaller carriers along long stretches of state
highways. These carriers have little incentive, and no money, to convert
these portions of their network to digital.
Unless there's roaming revenue to be had- arguably there's not much
reason to leave them analog only if "nobody" has a phone that can use them.
Adding GSM would make sense, since that would open them up to T-Mo and
Cingular roaming, whereas Verizon and Sprint customers with dual-mode
handsets can already use them as is...
>
> John has been claiming that AMPS will degrade Verizon's coverage to the
same level of Cingular's coverage for a couple of years now. In the long
term he may be right, but it's more likely that a lot of AMPS will remain
on, by choice, until there is something available to replace it.

Agreed- why would Verizon reduce coverage in low-usage rural areas, or
spend money updating the system when the leaving the status quo costs
nothing?

> Personally I think that the government should fund construction of
towers for rural coverage, and offer carriers the option to lease space
on the towers. No carrier is willing, on its own, to make the tremendous
investment to get ubiquitous digital coverage in rural areas.

Agreed- it would be a reasonable use of Universal Service Fund fees
collected from cellular customers.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 13:23:18 -0700, Todd Allcock
<ElecConnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
<455a2dcf$0$21151$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:

>... if a rural tower is not utilizing anything close to it's
>capacity, there's no incentive to shut of the "bandwith wasting" analog
>channels

Actually there is an incentive, because it's expensive to support and
maintain service for limited demand.

>Agreed- why would Verizon reduce coverage in low-usage rural areas, or
>spend money updating the system when the leaving the status quo costs
>nothing?

Because that's a misconception -- there is a very real cost to support
and maintain such service, a problem when there's so little demand.

>> Personally I think that the government should fund construction of
>towers for rural coverage, and offer carriers the option to lease space
>on the towers. No carrier is willing, on its own, to make the tremendous
>investment to get ubiquitous digital coverage in rural areas.
>
>Agreed- it would be a reasonable use of Universal Service Fund fees
>collected from cellular customers.

Again, terrible idea -- that kind of government interference in the
market only serves to create *dis*incentives.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Todd Allcock wrote:

> Adding GSM would make sense, since that would open them up to T-Mo and
> Cingular roaming, whereas Verizon and Sprint customers with dual-mode
> handsets can already use them as is...

True, but a lot of Sprint and Verizon customers don't have AMPS capable
handsets. Also, the carrier for some of the areas in question in the
Sierras is a CDMA/AMPS carrier (Golden State Cellular) though I guess
nothing would stop them from operating some GSM as well, as some smaller
CDMA/AMPS carriers are doing.

> Agreed- it would be a reasonable use of Universal Service Fund fees
> collected from cellular customers.

It'll have to wait at least until 2008. The FCC chief will have to be
replaced before something like this happens.

John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:3umjl2lmf2cvoqe2aebbvfc2ojma9g4a0c@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 01:37:19 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <45598e4d$0$88700$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>Dave wrote:
>
>>> I may give it a try. I mainly need downtown Los Gatos, Campbell (near
>>> Winchester and San Tomas) and downtown Campbell.
>>
>>As long as you don't need good Santa Cruz mountains coverage, Cingular
>>should be fine. I go up to the Saratoga Gap/Highway 9 area a lot, and
>>points east, south, and west from there, and Verizon is excellent, while
>>Cingular is poor.
>
> Dave, be warned that Steven has a hard-on for GSM in general and
> Cingular in particular, and rarely misses an opportunity to troll in the
> Cingular newsgroup and claim Verizon is better.
>

Dave- be warned that the only hard-on in this group is the result of John
Navas' blind obsession with Cingular. In his eyes, they are never at
fault. He will eventually blame your problem on your phone or dismiss it
as anecdotal rubbish.

>

John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:ud0kl2tn4upcmm21q0f81m92roqpk6msf8@4ax.com:


>
>>No carrier is willing, on its own, to make the tremendous
>>investment to get ubiquitous digital coverage in rural areas.
>
> Patently untrue.
>
> AMPS "sunset" will stimulate improved digital coverage in rural areas,
> part of why it's long overdue.
>


Rubbish. No carrier is going to be forced to give up AMPS once the OK to
discontiune it's usage is allowed. And an ultimate move to digital has
nothing to do with the sunset regulations- they were developed to protect
AMPS customers from losing service. The small carriers that dervive the
great majority of their revenue from raoming agreements with the bigger
carriers have no incentive to change a thing as long as the larger carriers
offer AMPS roaming to their customers. The big carriers have no incentive
to cut their ties with these carriers, as they don't bear any of the cost
of maintaining the AMPS network while offering their customers roaming in
areas that will never see GSM.


Economics 101- another course that Johnny Novice didn't do well in.

John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:u60kl29ltaietred7fu38qjoen09j7lv8k@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 10:04:01 -0700, Todd Allcock
> <ElecConnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
> <4559ea42$0$21093$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>

>
>>And, franlky, I'm not sure your implied "Verizon's coverage is better
>>now, but might be downgraded to Cingular's level in a few years when
>>AMPS is phased out" is exactly the cloth that sales brochures are cut
>>from!
>
> I said nothing of the kind. Cingular actually has better overall
> coverage than Verizon here in the San Francisco Bay Area.
>

According to who?

Well I am not to concerned given the info I have now. Verizon or cingular
will do the job for me.

I know that T-Mobile will not. I powered up an old Sprint phone I used in
the past and Sprint reception was marginal from inside the house but better
than t-mobile which never connected reliably when inside.


"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:q7GdnSpchJ0--cfYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@adelphia.com...
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> news:3umjl2lmf2cvoqe2aebbvfc2ojma9g4a0c@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 01:37:19 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote in <45598e4d$0$88700$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>>
>>>Dave wrote:
>>
>>>> I may give it a try. I mainly need downtown Los Gatos, Campbell (near
>>>> Winchester and San Tomas) and downtown Campbell.
>>>
>>>As long as you don't need good Santa Cruz mountains coverage, Cingular
>>>should be fine. I go up to the Saratoga Gap/Highway 9 area a lot, and
>>>points east, south, and west from there, and Verizon is excellent, while
>>>Cingular is poor.
>>
>> Dave, be warned that Steven has a hard-on for GSM in general and
>> Cingular in particular, and rarely misses an opportunity to troll in the
>> Cingular newsgroup and claim Verizon is better.
>>
>
> Dave- be warned that the only hard-on in this group is the result of John
> Navas' blind obsession with Cingular. In his eyes, they are never at
> fault. He will eventually blame your problem on your phone or dismiss it
> as anecdotal rubbish.
>
>>
>

Dave wrote:

>> Dave- be warned that the only hard-on in this group is the result of John
>> Navas' blind obsession with Cingular. In his eyes, they are never at
>> fault. He will eventually blame your problem on your phone or dismiss it
>> as anecdotal rubbish.
>
>

I'm technology agnostic, whatever works the best, at an acceptable price
level, is a good choice.

In the San Francisco Bay Area, all the independent surveys reach the
same conclusion, Verizon has the best coverage and quality by a very
wide margin. Part of the reason is that the outlying areas have coverage
by the legacy AMPS network that Cingular and T-Mobile can't duplicate.

If you're just comparing digital coverage, then Cingular and Verizon are
closer in coverage, but the inherent technological advantages of CDMA
over the older GSM technology still give the edge to Verizon for now.

I'd urge the original poster to go look at the independent surveys of
coverage done by Consumer Reports and Bay Area Consumer Checkbook. The
trial period that the carriers offer is not long enough to determine
whether or not a carrier provides acceptable coverage.

At 14 Nov 2006 22:08:52 +0000 John Navas wrote:
> Actually there is an incentive, because it's expensive to support and
> maintain service for limited demand.

I would argue that it's cheaper to let the current infrastructure stand
than convert any existing analog capacity to digital, assuming the extra
digital capacity isn't needed currently.
>
> >Agreed- why would Verizon reduce coverage in low-usage rural areas, or
> >spend money updating the system when the leaving the status quo costs
> >nothing?
>
> Because that's a misconception -- there is a very real cost to support
> and maintain such service, a problem when there's so little demand.

There's a cost to replace worn components surely, but there's little
extra cost in letting a working system stand. Again, the analog
infrastructure will be replaced as it wears out, but where's the "cost
savings" in rolling out a bunch of trucks and technicians the day they're
allowed to to replace perfectly good components?
> >Agreed- it would be a reasonable use of Universal Service Fund fees
> >collected from cellular customers.
>
> Again, terrible idea -- that kind of government interference in the
> market only serves to create *dis*incentives.

I'm normally against government interference, but cellular's been around
over 20 years, and the "free market" has still left much of this country
without service. The whole point of the USF is to provide "modern"
service to unserved areas.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Todd Allcock wrote:

> I'm normally against government interference, but cellular's been around
> over 20 years, and the "free market" has still left much of this country
> without service. The whole point of the USF is to provide "modern"
> service to unserved areas.

It's similar to the old REA. See
"http://newdeal.feri.org/tva/tva10.htm". It would be a very appropriate
use of the USF.

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:54:59 -0700, Todd Allcock
<ElecConnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
<455a7c95$0$21105$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:

>At 14 Nov 2006 22:08:52 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>> Actually there is an incentive, because it's expensive to support and
>> maintain service for limited demand.
>
>I would argue that it's cheaper to let the current infrastructure stand
>than convert any existing analog capacity to digital, assuming the extra
>digital capacity isn't needed currently.

The problem is backlash from degrading service, which is why most
companies won't do that -- if not turned off, it must be supported, so
what they want is turn it off.

>There's a cost to replace worn components surely, but there's little
>extra cost in letting a working system stand. Again, the analog
>infrastructure will be replaced as it wears out, but where's the "cost
>savings" in rolling out a bunch of trucks and technicians the day they're
>allowed to to replace perfectly good components?

Little cost to just turn it off -- there's only significant cost to
redeploy the infrastructure and spectrum, for which there may be enough
service revenue to make it worthwhile.

>> Again, terrible idea -- that kind of government interference in the
>> market only serves to create *dis*incentives.
>
>I'm normally against government interference, but cellular's been around
>over 20 years, and the "free market" has still left much of this country
>without service.

If it made sense (demand and economics), then the market would provide
it. When that hasn't happened, then either demand or economics aren't
there.

With regard to economics, I'm willing to be that most people would
object to paying (say) even $5/month more to have better service in some
remote rural areas. (I know I would.)

>The whole point of the USF is to provide "modern"
>service to unserved areas.

It's inefficient and counterproductive to have one service subsidize
another. USF primarily supports libraries and schools, and even there
it doesn't make sense, since it interferes with free market
alternatives.

The big obstacle to wider availability of digital in rural areas has
been the AMPS mandate (government interference in the market). Once
that mandate sunsets (long overdue), we'll be much more likely to get
improved digital coverage in rural areas. In other words, the solution
is less government interference, not more government interference.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:33:41 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <455a6e73$0$88699$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Dave wrote:
>
>>> Dave- be warned that the only hard-on in this group is the result of John
>>> Navas' blind obsession with Cingular. In his eyes, they are never at
>>> fault. He will eventually blame your problem on your phone or dismiss it
>>> as anecdotal rubbish.
>
>I'm technology agnostic, whatever works the best, at an acceptable price
>level, is a good choice.

LOL! That's pretty funny.

>In the San Francisco Bay Area, all the independent surveys reach the
>same conclusion, Verizon has the best coverage and quality by a very
>wide margin. Part of the reason is that the outlying areas have coverage
>by the legacy AMPS network that Cingular and T-Mobile can't duplicate.

Cingular actually has the best coverage in the Bay Area.

>If you're just comparing digital coverage, then Cingular and Verizon are
>closer in coverage, but the inherent technological advantages of CDMA
>over the older GSM technology still give the edge to Verizon for now.

There is no significant technology difference. (So much for your
agnosticism, which didn't even last to the end of your message.)

>I'd urge the original poster to go look at the independent surveys of
>coverage done by Consumer Reports and Bay Area Consumer Checkbook.

Of course. Likewise JD Powers, which is more accurate, and which shows
that differences between carriers are relatively small.

>The
>trial period that the carriers offer is not long enough to determine
>whether or not a carrier provides acceptable coverage.

Sure it is (assuming you actually leave the house).

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

At 15 Nov 2006 05:34:29 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> >I'm normally against government interference, but cellular's been
around
> >over 20 years, and the "free market" has still left much of this
country
> >without service.
>
> If it made sense (demand and economics), then the market would provide
> it.

Not always- Steven's example of Rural Electric was spot on. Government's
job is to do what the people can't do for themselves.

> When that hasn't happened, then either demand or economics aren't
> there.


Arguably, the army isn't cost-effective, nor the police force. Sometimes
society has to pay for safety and convenience.
>
> With regard to economics, I'm willing to be that most people would
> object to paying (say) even $5/month more to have better service in some
> remote rural areas. (I know I would.)

Agreed. I don't personally want to pay for E911 either, but nobody asked
me! I think blanket nationwide coverage would be a better way to
spendour telecommunications taxes and fees than on E911 and number
portability.
>
> >The whole point of the USF is to provide "modern"
> >service to unserved areas.
>
> It's inefficient and counterproductive to have one service subsidize
> another. USF primarily supports libraries and schools, and even there
> it doesn't make sense, since it interferes with free market
> alternatives.

What alternatives? As recently as just a couple of years ago, banks were
asking the Fed for permission to operate ISPs in rural areas just so
small towns could have an ISP to do online banking! (Post-depression-era
regulations prohibit banks from operating business not directly related
to banking.) We're talking about a rural need for dial-up ISPs! Not
even broadband. There's a digital divide that the free market doesn't
find economical to bridge.

> The big obstacle to wider availability of digital in rural areas has
> been the AMPS mandate (government interference in the market).

Nonsense. Your "free-market" should've fixed it by itself- if digital
was so superior and cheaper why haven't rural providers already upgraded
all of these AMPS sites to take advantage of these benefits? They
Could've left just a couple of AMPS channels for minimal compliance just
like the metro operators. The real reason is, just like AM radio was
never fully replaced by FM, AMPS works, and works well for what it is.

What hinders the migration to digital in rural areas is our stupid
multiple digital standards. Rural carriers have to replace/supplement
analog with multiple incompatible digital implementations to get roaming
revenue from all of the major carriers.

> Once
> that mandate sunsets (long overdue), we'll be much more likely to get
> improved digital coverage in rural areas. In other words, the solution
> is less government interference, not more government interference.

The real solution is too late to implement, but the government should've
made the wireless companies choose a single national digital standard,
like they forced television broadcasters and manufacturers to create NTSC
fifty years ago. If the modern-era FCC had been running things 50 years
ago, we'd likely have needed two different sets to watch NBC and CBS!



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 23:34:33 -0700, Todd Allcock
<ElecConnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
<455b1e51$0$21132$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:

>At 15 Nov 2006 05:34:29 +0000 John Navas wrote:

>> If it made sense (demand and economics), then the market would provide
>> it.
>
>Not always- Steven's example of Rural Electric was spot on. Government's
>job is to do what the people can't do for themselves.

I disagree. Government should only provide public things that can't be
left to the market, like defense, police, fire, and public
infrastructure. Forcing one group (non-rural dwellers) to subsidize
another group (rural dwellers) results in harmful economic dislocation.

There's no good reason for rural dwellers not to pay the full real cost
of goods and services they consume. When they do so, it creates
economic incentives which drive innovations that result in increased
efficiency.

>> When that hasn't happened, then either demand or economics aren't
>> there.
>
>Arguably, the army isn't cost-effective, nor the police force.

Those are public good that can't be left to the market.

>Sometimes
>society has to pay for safety and convenience.

Public good, yes; convenience, no. Again, the problem is that
government interference results in inefficiency and economic dislocation
through disincentives that inhibit innovations in goods and services.

Why should I pay to run power lines to your vacation cabin in the
mountains, which pollutes and despoils the wilderness? Why shouldn't
you be expected to pay for your own solar power and/or fuel cell system,
along with your own sewage system?

In the case of rural electrification, government interference might well
have greatly slowed innovations in micro off-grid power systems. Long
distance electrical transmission is expensive, inefficient, and ugly.

>> With regard to economics, I'm willing to be that most people would
>> object to paying (say) even $5/month more to have better service in some
>> remote rural areas. (I know I would.)
>
>Agreed. I don't personally want to pay for E911 either, but nobody asked
>me! I think blanket nationwide coverage would be a better way to
>spendour telecommunications taxes and fees than on E911 and number
>portability.

I disagree. E911 is simply a way for society to ensure that you pay
your fair share of emergency services (a public good) as a kind of
insurance.

Increased coverage in rural areas isn't (yet at least) a public good,
it's (still) a convenience -- while public safety could be an argument
for increased rural coverage, it's not clear that cellular is the most
appropriate way to provide that. For example, PLB technology may well
make more sense, and government interference might well result in less
innovation in this area.

If there really is demand and economics for wireless safety in rural
areas, then the market will respond. Government should be limited to
public good; e.g., operating the PLB satellite system, although even
that dislocates the market, inhibiting alternatives, both terrestrial
(e.g., OnStar) and non-terrestrial (e.g., Globalstar, Inmarsat, Iridium,
Thuraya). Commercial services are precisely the things that may well
accelerate increased digital coverage in rural areas once the AMPS
mandate "sunsets".

In short, lack of more complete digital coverage in rural areas is a
likely _result_ of government interference, and thus a case for _less_
government interference, not _more_ of it. Likewise government mandates
for universal wired service.

>> It's inefficient and counterproductive to have one service subsidize
>> another. USF primarily supports libraries and schools, and even there
>> it doesn't make sense, since it interferes with free market
>> alternatives.
>
>What alternatives? As recently as just a couple of years ago, banks were
>asking the Fed for permission to operate ISPs in rural areas just so
>small towns could have an ISP to do online banking! (Post-depression-era
>regulations prohibit banks from operating business not directly related
>to banking.) We're talking about a rural need for dial-up ISPs! Not
>even broadband. There's a digital divide that the free market doesn't
>find economical to bridge.

You're too impatient. It takes time for innovation and market response.
It's precisely those short-run opportunities that drive long-run
innovations. Or put another way, short-run pain for long-run gain. If
instead you legislate away the short-run pain, then you destroy the
incentives for long-run gain, which tends to result in long-run pain.
When there is demand and economics, the market will respond, as long as
we give it time and opportunity to do so.

>> The big obstacle to wider availability of digital in rural areas has
>> been the AMPS mandate (government interference in the market).
>
>Nonsense. Your "free-market" should've fixed it by itself- if digital
>was so superior and cheaper why haven't rural providers already upgraded
>all of these AMPS sites to take advantage of these benefits? They
>Could've left just a couple of AMPS channels for minimal compliance just
>like the metro operators. The real reason is, just like AM radio was
>never fully replaced by FM, AMPS works, and works well for what it is.

It's illogical to interfere in the market and then try to blame the
market for not working. You may think the AMPS mandate isn't a factor,
but there's no way to know for sure when it's still in place, and plenty
of both logic and evidence that it is a factor.

For example, a big part of the problem with the AMPS mandate is that it
artificially reduced demand for digital service, both in cellular voice
and in commercial services (e.g., OnStar). Had there been more natural
demand for digital, then deployment might well have occurred much
faster.

There was simply no practical and economical way for carriers to do what
you suggest, much like your suggestion that there's no cost to leave
AMPS in place after "sunset".

>What hinders the migration to digital in rural areas is our stupid
>multiple digital standards. Rural carriers have to replace/supplement
>analog with multiple incompatible digital implementations to get roaming
>revenue from all of the major carriers.

Again, I disagree. Left to itself the market is quite capable of
dealing with technical issues like that, multi-format DVD recorders
being a classic case in point. It's not that difficult for rural
carriers to support multiple standards, as many of them do.

It made sense for government to mandate number portability because that
removed an artificial barrier to competition. On the other hand, it
doesn't make sense for government to mandate a technical standard
because that tends to greatly inhibit innovation. If, for example,
government had inhibited development of CDMA in favor of TDMA, then we
would have lost the benefits of related innovations, including W-CDMA.

>> Once
>> that mandate sunsets (long overdue), we'll be much more likely to get
>> improved digital coverage in rural areas. In other words, the solution
>> is less government interference, not more government interference.
>
>The real solution is too late to implement, but the government should've
>made the wireless companies choose a single national digital standard,
>like they forced television broadcasters and manufacturers to create NTSC
>fifty years ago. If the modern-era FCC had been running things 50 years
>ago, we'd likely have needed two different sets to watch NBC and CBS!

With all due respect, that's a terrible proposition. The market left
alone would have undoubtedly sorted things out, just as it has in other
areas. Instead we got stuck with the crappy NTSC system for decades,
and are only now able to get beyond its severe limitations.

The market does work, much better than government interference, even
though it doesn't always do what you want or think it should do, and
even though it's not as fast as you want it to be. We just have to
resist the powerful temptation to meddle.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:0s8ll2pl1bs98tqc05a5jp1qgs0dmk44rd@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:54:59 -0700, Todd Allcock
> <ElecConnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
> <455a7c95$0$21105$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>
>>At 14 Nov 2006 22:08:52 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>>> Actually there is an incentive, because it's expensive to support and
>>> maintain service for limited demand.
>>
>>I would argue that it's cheaper to let the current infrastructure stand
>>than convert any existing analog capacity to digital, assuming the extra
>>digital capacity isn't needed currently.
>
> The problem is backlash from degrading service, which is why most
> companies won't do that -- if not turned off, it must be supported, so
> what they want is turn it off.


So your point is that any new system deployed would not cost anything to
prevent degrdation of service? Quite myopic, even for you.



>
> The big obstacle to wider availability of digital in rural areas has
> been the AMPS mandate (government interference in the market). Once
> that mandate sunsets (long overdue), we'll be much more likely to get
> improved digital coverage in rural areas. In other words, the solution
> is less government interference, not more government interference.
>

Rubbish.

>If it made sense (demand and economics), then the market would provide
>it. When that hasn't happened, then either demand or economics aren't
>there.
The "market" in economics is like "assume a spherical cow" in physics.
It's usually good for a first approximation, but sometimes fails udderly.

tmoran@acm.org wrote:
>> If it made sense (demand and economics), then the market would provide
>> it. When that hasn't happened, then either demand or economics aren't
>> there.
> The "market" in economics is like "assume a spherical cow" in physics.
> It's usually good for a first approximation, but sometimes fails udderly.

There are many situations where due to overwhelming public interest, the
government funds programs that would never occur if they depended on
market forces.

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:28:36 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <455cf425$0$88688$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>tmoran@acm.org wrote:
>>> If it made sense (demand and economics), then the market would provide
>>> it. When that hasn't happened, then either demand or economics aren't
>>> there.
>> The "market" in economics is like "assume a spherical cow" in physics.
>> It's usually good for a first approximation, but sometimes fails udderly.
>
>There are many situations where due to overwhelming public interest, the
>government funds programs that would never occur if they depended on
>market forces.

Actually not.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>